Are videos proof of consent?

Two videos filmed with a mobile phone. Similarly, in which the woman claims to be “agreed with this” and that “everything was consensual”, were presented as proof during the trial of Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex formenton, Dillon Dube and Callan Fote. Moreover,

The five men pleaded not guilty of sexual assault after a meeting in a hotel room in London. Moreover, Ontario in the early morning on June 19, 2018. Similarly, McLeod also pleaded not guilty to an additional accusation of complicity in sexual assault.

Judge Maria Carroccia. For example, from the Ontario Superior Court, is expected to render his decision Thursday in this case where consent has become a central issue.

The prosecutors argued that the complainant had not voluntarily consented to the sexual acts which took place. Therefore, and that videos proof consent? the players had not taken reasonable measures to confirm her consent. Meanwhile, The crown rejected the videos of the woman taken that evening. However, calling them “facade checks”, arguing that she believed that she had had no choice but to submit when a group of men whom she did not know to ask her to do things in the hotel room.

Defense lawyers. Therefore, on the other hand, have repeatedly challenged the credibility and reliability of the complainant as a witness, arguing that she had actively participated in sexual activity and that she had invented allegations because she did not want to assume the responsibility of her choices that evening.

Not proof. possibly hearing

Video declarations, such as short extracts presented during this trial, do not necessarily constitute proof of consent, explained Daphne Gilbert, professor of law at the University of Ottawa.

“From a legal point of view. they have very little relevance, because consent must be continuous and contemporary with sexual activity and you must consent to each thing that happens to you,” said Gilbert, who is doing research on violence and sexual abuse in Canadian sport.

“Prerequisite does not exist. There is also no a posteriori consent. So, it is not because we say: “Yes, everything was consensual” that it becomes. “

Lisa Dufraimont. a law professor at York University, said that these videos could also be considered hearing, because they do not contain declarations made under oath in court.

“If the complainant testified at the helm at the trial. said he had consented at that time, that would constitute proof of her consent at that time,” said Dufraimont, whose research focuses on evidence in the cases of sexual assault.

However. she added that videos could be used for other legal arguments, including those who could rely on a description of the defendant’s behavior or the complainant at that time.

“It is possible that. if the video is taken shortly before the alleged sexual assault, it reveals elements on the level of poisoning or the emotional state of the person, which could or may not correspond to what he declared later on her emotional state at that time,” said Dufraimont.

McLeod was “a little worried”

During the trial. the crown argued that the videos presented in court did not prove that the complainant had voluntarily consented to what had happened.

“The recording of this video does not constitute a consent to anything. Everything had already happened. “said the prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham about the video, in which the woman says videos proof consent? that” everything was consensual “, adding that the consent must be communicated for each specific act at the time it takes place.

Only one of the accused. Hart, testified for his own defense, and the court heard or watched the interviews that three of the others – McLeod, formed and Dube – granted the police in 2018. People accused of crimes are not required to testify. and the defense is not required to present evidence, because it is up to the Crown to prove guilt out of all reasonable doubt.

During his interview with the police in 2018. McLeod told an investigator having recorded one of the videos because he was “just a little worried that such a thing could happen”.

At the helm, Hart testified that consent videos are not unusual for professional athletes.

Professor Gilbert believes that Canada in general videos proof consent? still has work to do to raise awareness of young people about consent. especially in sport. It participates in efforts to teach young people in the context of school programs. but says that professional hockey, in particular, is delayed in the adoption of policies to approach the issue.

Consent must be “enthusiastic, affirmative, continuous and coherent” – “Yes means yes,” said Gilbert.

“I think people do not understand that this is precisely what the law requires. If you know. if you consider this as the way we should approach the question of consent, then I think it is easier to understand why these videos do not make much sense. ”